------- Comment #3 from s...@iname.com 2009-04-10 14:34 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> That's an entirely separate issue from this enhancement request. The spec
> does not say that 'pointless' attributes should trigger an error, so I don't
> see how it's "accepts-invalid" at all.
talks of "members". Should we interpret this to include arbitrary members of a
2. Where does the spec state that it's legal to use attributes that are not
applicable to the entity to which they're applied? Otherwise it's reasonable
to assume that, should the compiler fail in its attempt to apply an attribute
to something, this failure is supposed to be by means of generating an error.
3. Making a class or similar entity private makes perfect sense. Silently
ignoring attempts to do so makes absolutely none.